This is in reference to a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proceeding involving
a claim of discrimination by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) against
an FPL employee, Mr. Donald Duprey. On July 13, 2000, the presiding DOL
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), found, under a dual motive analysis, that
complainant was demoted in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act
(ERA), but that FPL had successfully shown that it legitimately would
have demoted complainant even if he had not engaged in protected activity.
For this reason, the complainant was denied the relief he sought and his
complaint was dismissed. Subsequently, complainant appealed the ALJ's
Recommended Decision and Order (RDO) to the Administrative Review Board
(ARB). On February 27, 2003, the ARB issued a Final Decision and Order,
affirming the ALJ's decision denying complainant any relief on his claim
of discrimination.

By NRC letter of May 12, 2003, and via an exit teleconference, FPL was
informed that escalated enforcement action was being considered for an
apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7, based on the NRC's review of the DOL
findings. Additionally, FPL was informed that the NRC had sufficient information,
regarding the apparent violation and associated corrective actions, upon
which to make an enforcement decision without the need for a predecisional
enforcement conference. By letter of May 14, 2003, FPL advised of its
decision to decline a predecisional enforcement conference and also provided
its response to the apparent violation. The NRC has reviewed this information
and believes it has sufficient information upon which to make an enforcement
decision.

In its response of May 14, FPL advised that NRC's letter of May 12, 2003,
was in error when it asserted that DOL found that FPL discriminated against
the complainant in violation of Section 211 of the ERA. In this regard,
FPL asserted that the ALJ determined that complainant made a preliminary
or prima facie case of discrimination requiring a response from
FPL, but that both the ALJ and ARB concluded there was no violation of
the Act and ruled in FPL's favor. In support of this conclusion, FPL noted
that Section 211(b)(1)(B) of the ERA requires DOL to order abatement of
a violation, including reinstatement and back pay whenever it determines
that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred. FPL advised that no such
remedy was ordered in this case because there was no violation of the
ERA.

The NRC agrees that both the ALJ and ARB determined that no remedy would
be awarded the complainant because FPL successfully demonstrated that
it would have taken the same action against him even in the absence of
his protected activity. The NRC does not agree, however, with FPL's conclusion
that there was no violation of the ERA. The ALJ, under Section II (Dual
Motive) of the RDO, expressly found that in addition to his being legitimately
and appropriately disciplined for continued, regular violation of Respondent's
sick leave policy, "... complainant was also demoted for the illegitimate
reason of retaliation for his protected activity." In a footnote to this
finding, the ALJ concluded that "Complainant has thus established that
Respondent's proffered reason for the adverse action taken against him,
i.e., that he was demoted solely for violation of its sick leave
policy, is pretextual." Similarly, the ARB, at page 10 of its Final Decision
and Order, concurred that the record supported the ALJ's conclusion that
FPL violated the Act when it demoted complainant, and that FPL successfully
demonstrated that it would have demoted complainant in the absence of
protected activity. Thus, it is clear that both the ALJ and ARB concluded
that complainant's demotion was motivated, in part, by the illegitimate
reason of complainant's protected activity, and these findings form the
bases for the NRC's conclusion that a violation of its Employee Protection
regulation occurred.

The violation is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice)
and involves a violation of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection. Specifically,
the NRC has concluded that FPL demoted Mr. Duprey in January 1999, at
least in part, because of his engagement in protected activity. The protected
activity involved Mr. Duprey's reporting of nuclear safety violations
and plant procedural issues to FPL supervisors and to the NRC. Discrimination
against employees who engage in protected activity is of concern to the
NRC because of the potential for creation of an unfavorable working environment
where employees may be unwilling to raise safety concerns. Therefore,
this violation has been categorized in accordance with the "General Statement
of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" NUREG-1600, (Enforcement
Policy) as a Severity Level III violation.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base
value of $60,000 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because
your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement action
within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted
for corrective action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment
process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy.

On April 2, 2003, FPL provided NRC its response to the DOL findings.
FPL supplemented its response by letter dated April 23, 2003. Although
FPL continues to assert that its actions against Mr. Duprey were unrelated
to his engaging in protected activity, the April 23rd letter
summarized its anti-discrimination policy and discussed the other actions
FPL has taken to maintain a safety conscious work environment (SCWE) at
its nuclear sites. These actions included informing all FPL Nuclear Division
managers and supervisors of company expectations regarding maintaining
SCWEs, making nuclear counsel available to answer questions and to provide
additional training on SCWE issues, issuance of a written memorandum to
all Nuclear Division personnel reiterating company expectations regarding
management receptivity to safety concerns, and emphasizing FPL's position
on not tolerating discrimination, Site Vice President meetings with plant
workers to emphasize his focus on nuclear safety and the importance of
open communications, and developing safety culture training which will
be provided to Nuclear Division managers and supervisors. Based on the
foregoing actions, the NRC has determined that credit was warranted for
corrective actions.

Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of violations,
and in recognition of the absence of previous escalated enforcement action,
I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of
Enforcement, to propose that no civil penalty be assessed in this case.
However, you are on notice that significant violations in the future could
result in a civil penalty.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation,
the corrective actions taken to correct the violation and prevent recurrence,
and the date when full compliance will be achieved is adequately addressed
on the docket in your letter of April 23, 2003, and in this letter. Therefore,
you are not required to respond to the violation contained in this letter
unless the description herein does not accurately reflect your corrective
actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional
information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed
Notice.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy
of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if you choose to provide
one) will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the
NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public NRC Library).

If you have any questions about this inspection, please contact Mr. Victor
M. McCree, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, at (404) 562-4500.

William A. Passetti
Bureau of Radiation Control
Department of Health
Electronic Mail Distribution

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Florida Power and Light Company
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Units 1 and 2

Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251
License Nos. DPR-31, DPR-41
EA-00-230

Based on NRC review of a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Recommended Decision and Order (ALJ Case No. 2000-ERA)
issued on July 13, 2000, and a DOL Administrative Review Board (ARB) Final
Decision and Order (ARB Case No. 00-070) issued on February 27, 2003,
a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the
"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
NUREG-1600, (Enforcement Policy), the violation is listed below:

10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee
against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination
includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities which are protected
are established in Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or
enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the
Energy Reorganization Act. Protected activities include, but are not limited
to, reporting of safety concerns by an employee to his employer or the
NRC.

Contrary to the above, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL)
discriminated against Mr. Donald Duprey, an employee at the Turkey
Point Nuclear Plant, for engaging in protected activity. Specifically,
as determined by DOL, FPL demoted Mr. Duprey in January 1999, at least
in part, because of his engagement in protected activity involving his
reporting of nuclear safety violations and plant procedural issues to
FPL supervisors and to the NRC.

This violation is characterized at Severity Level III (Supplement VII).

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation,
the corrective actions taken to correct the violation and prevent recurrence,
and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed
on the docket in your letter of April 23, 2003, and in cover letter transmitting
this Notice of Violation (Notice). However, you are required to submit
a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description
therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position.
In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response
as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555
with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II within 30 days of
the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy
of your response, with the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.

Because any response will be made available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available
Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), to the extent
possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or
safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public
without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public NRC Library). If personal privacy or proprietary
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please
provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information
that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes
such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must
specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have
withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding
(e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10
CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial
or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide
an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described
in 10 CFR 73.21.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice
within two working days.